sad state of boxing

[Nameless]

It is an appalling first post. Vitali Klistschko is an exceptional fighter. He doesn't lose rounds and the only way to beat him is to get lucky with an injury or a cut and that is bound to happen with the big men occasionally. Vitali has destroyed pretty much everyone. He was beating byrd decisively at the point of stoppage and was beating Lewis too.

He is a quality fighter and it is easy to criticise and say what he does wrong, but perhaps his flaws are also some of his strengths. It is isn't as easy to fight him as it seems from an armchair. Every opponent finds that out. Haye would get a pound down. Savagely.

I agree with Miles. The reason most experts believe Vitali is one of most difficult to beat fighter ever is simply because he is.

Anyone who thinks Joe luis, Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey could have beaten up Vitali and Wlad is a moron imo. Yes their size is a huge asset, but it's size combined with meticulous training, always being in perfect condition, discipline and the mastery of a perfect fighting style to match their physcial attributes.

They would rise to the top in any era. They may not be risk takers, and so prefer to break down their opponents slowly and methodically but they are still exceptionally difficult to beat.

How many fighters have lost less rounds in their entire career than Vitali Klitschko?

He's probably lost less rounds in his career than any other fighter of the last 30 years, maybe ever. If you disagree challenge me on it and name somebody.

Add to that the fact that Vitali has the highest ko rating in the history of the HW division. That should speak volume by itself, you can't be talentless and ko around 97% of your opponents, something must be done correctly in there.

I really dont know what to say, You cant say these guys would or could beat a prime foreman, Tyson and the most underrated heavyweight Larry Holmes, who proved he could take a punch, can anyone of you guys or girls say the klitchko's punch harder than ermie shavers, or ron lyle, I watched vitale and maybe im the only one to see, but he was off balance, the hooks and uppercuts he threw were garbage. Lets say Tyson or Foreman or any other fighter had the same fighter in front of them basically a punching bag, The fight wouldnt have gone 2 rounds thats a fact. I understand that some are fans of the brothers but im not. Being the best of the worst is nothing to brag about

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

[Rantcatrat]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

[ninjaspy3]

The Klitschko brothers aren't just good because they are big, they are good because they are big AND good. Those two traits are not mutually exclusive. The other big guys around now are simply not good. There may be smaller guys around now who are pretty good, but all other things even, the good bigger man beats the good smaller man.

Now a lot of people like to hate on Mike Tyson because he lost certain fights, but I think it is important to remember that Mike Tyson was 5'11". That is small! Yes, he lost to Holyfield who, although formerly a cruiser weight, seemed to carry the extra weight into the HW division well. You can see that Holyfield makes Tyson look short!

I am just saying that for his size, Tyson was a good small man who eventually lost to bigger men.
Now Tyson Fury, Demintriko, and Helenius are big... but they are not that good... yet.
But it should be noted that the mere fact they are big already gives them the advantage against some of their smaller fighters who may have equal skill.

I assume all this should be obvious but sometimes it seems that some people over look the size advantage. I mean hell, we all know Adamek is a good, tough little fighter, but look at what his lack of size did to him against big men who were actually not good. Sure he won, but the big guy was always in the fight while poor Adamek had to give 100% just to tackle guys so much bigger.

It goes without saying that Vitali would be too much for him.

[Mr140]

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

[piye]

Pyie i hate to bring it up but because i hate doing it but Larry was coming off losses and had not fought in a while when he got to Tyson. I am not sure he would of won but he was pretty rusty compared to the version that Holyfeild and Mercer fought. As for the others you named i Think Byrd, Chambers, Chag, and Haye i on there level i do not fell that the division is much weaker the then the late 1980's. I while give you that Larry Holmes was still the best win out of the bunch but he was kinda not preped really to me.

I understand what your saying but it is influenced slightly by your agenda The Holmes that Tyson fought and the Lewis that Vitali fought were similar in that both were past their best clearly but both were still elite fighters and could beat the very best.

IN his test against a legend from the previous era Tyson won and Vitali did not

[Nameless]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

[Dave Hughey]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

[Dave Hughey]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

[Andre]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

[Hulk]

I never said that Vitali is invincible and is the best there has ever been. What i am saying is that the guy has the potential and the tools to beat almost any HW in history. HE has that potential, which doesn't mean he would have make it, the nuance here is very important. Vitali has a higher KO ratio than Ernie and Lyle, that's a fact. Does it mean that he's stronger then them? Probably not for a "one hit ko", Shavers and Lyle might be both in front of him in that respect. However, his power has still to be way above the average to achieve such feat of ko percentage and in the whole history of the HW, Vitali is perhaps the most talented when it comes down to grinding down your opponent to leave him in rubbles, the KO percentage plays in its favor in that respect.

This is a spot on post and I agree in its entirety. I wouldn't argue that Vitali would necessarily beat Ali/Holmes/Shavers/Lyle/primeForeman etc. I would argue that he would give any of them a tough fight and if he fought each of them a few times, Vitali would win a few. But, you only really stuck to comparing him to the best of one era, the golden age of heavyweight boxing, the 1970's and early 1980's. How about comparing Vitali to the best heavyweights between 1930 and 1970? I say there is a good argument Vitali comes up on top more often than not in those eras.

Totally agree too. The boxing scene has a big problem that deserves a deeper gaze: When it comes to the greatest of the past, they are always spoken of as saints, untouchables. They have a kind of "don't even thik to touch my legacy" halo and it is like if nobody of the modern guys could ever come close to them. I think that though they are/were great, they are not untouchable. Some of the guys of today would sure be able to dance between the four corners with them and some of those would also win.
I remember once to have read an interview with legendary Lou Duva and he was so partial in his analyse, he was even saying that the HW of today could never even carry the gym's bag of the heroes from the past, which I thought was absolutely ludicrous and the mere reflect of the golden years of an old nostalgic coach.

Because they are unexciting (at least, often), Wlad and Vitali are looked over like if they were just poor big guys in a piss poor era. It is far more complex than that and as we said, they (especially Vitali in his prime) would have the tools to at least have a very decent shot against most of the all time great.

Well said.

I would like to add one thing. Some people see Wlad and Vitali as being boring. But I don't think Vitali vs. Lewis was boring. Just the opposite. They will talk about that fight as long as there are two fight fans left to argue with one another.

Society and law also shaped the different boxing eras into what they became to an extent and that reflects into the fighters.

One of my main reasons for questioning the modern heavies is our lifestyle now. No one is actually hungry, I mean real hunger not the egos hunger for fame.

No one these days has to do 2 shifts of 16 hours hard labor to survive then go training, the rounds are even lower these days to accommodate the modern fighters.

I think some of the modern fighters may be able to stand up by using ring smarts alone as did a couple of old fighters but not many, not over 20 rounds or back further when you had to fight till one of you are finished. Some of those fights went for hours out in an open ring in the sun, those boys really were of stern stuff.

If you dragged a turn of century heavy into the ring now with big padded modern gloves over 12 rounds I think they may easily get done on points by a great modern fighter but I cant see the reverse happening no way. I think it depends on where you stand looking at it all and which way you are envisaging taking your fighters.

You sir raise some good points of how tough the old time fighters were. Even more modern guys like Archie Moore, Jake Lamotta, Ray Robinson, were animals who often fought top opponents 3 times in a month.

But, the bare knuckle fighters and guys like Jack Johnson went tons of rounds, but have you watched the way they fought ? It was all clinching and throwing about 5 punches a round. It was terribly boring. And they did not have great technique on their punches.

A guy like Chris Arreola would rip most of their heads off. He may not be quite as tough, but he is a hell of a lot bigger and throws a hell of a lot more punches.